Curigliano, Giuseppe

PURPOSE To develop recommendations for germline mutation testing for patients with breast cancer. METHODS An ASCO–Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) panel convened to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and formal consensus process. RESULTS Forty-seven articles met eligibility criteria for the germline mutation testing recommendations; 18 for the genetic counseling recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS BRCA1/ 2 mutation testing should be offered to all newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer ≤65 years and select patients >65 years based on personal history, family history, ancestry, or eligibility for poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy. All patients with recurrent breast cancer who are candidates for PARP inhibitor therapy should be offered BRCA1/ 2 testing, regardless of family history. BRCA1/ 2 testing should be offered to women who develop a second primary cancer in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. For patients with prior history of breast cancer and without active disease, testing should be offered to patients diagnosed ≤65 years and selectively in patients diagnosed after 65 years, if it will inform personal and family risk. Testing for high-penetrance cancer susceptibility genes beyond BRCA1/ 2 should be offered to those with supportive family histories; testing for moderate-penetrance genes may be offered if necessary to inform personal and family cancer risk. Patients should be provided enough pretest information for informed consent; those with pathogenic variants should receive individualized post-test counseling. Variants of uncertain significance should not impact management, and patients with such variants should be followed for reclassification. Referral to providers experienced in clinical cancer genetics may help facilitate patient selection and interpretation of expanded testing, and provide counseling of individuals without pathogenic germline variants but with significant family history. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Background: Rearranged during transfection ( RET ) alterations are targetable oncogenic drivers in thyroid cancer. Primary data from the open-label, phase 1/2 ARROW study demonstrated clinical activity and manageable safety with pralsetinib, a selective RET inhibitor, in patients with advanced/metastatic RET -altered thyroid cancer. We present an updated analysis with more patients and longer follow-up. Methods: Adult patients with advanced/metastatic RET -mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) or RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer who initiated oral pralsetinib at 400 mg once daily were included. Primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (per RECIST v1.1) and safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival. Responses were assessed in three cohorts of patients with baseline measurable disease: patients with RET -mutant MTC who had received prior cabozantinib and/or vandetanib (C/V), treatment-naïve patients with RET -mutant MTC, and patients with previously treated RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were an exploratory endpoint. Results: As of October 18, 2021, the measurable disease population comprised of 61 patients with RET -mutant MTC and prior C/V, 62 treatment-naïve patients with RET -mutant MTC, and 22 patients with RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer who had received prior systemic therapy, including radioactive iodine. The ORR was 55.7% [confidence interval; 95% CI: 42.4–68.5] in patients with RET -mutant MTC and prior C/V, 77.4% [95% CI: 65.0–87.1] in treatment-naïve patients with RET -mutant MTC, and 90.9% [95% CI: 70.8–98.9] in patients with previously treated RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer. Median DoR and median PFS were both 25.8 months in patients with RET -mutant MTC and prior C/V, not reached in treatment-naïve patients with RET -mutant MTC, and 23.6 and 25.4 months, respectively, in patients with previously treated RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer. In the RET -altered thyroid cancer safety population ( N = 175), 97.1% of patients reported a treatment-related adverse event (TRAE); these led to discontinuation in 5.7% and dose reduction in 52.6% of patients. There was one death (0.6%) due to a TRAE. PROs improved or remained stable after pralsetinib treatment. Conclusions: In this updated analysis of the ARROW study, pralsetinib continued to show deep and durable clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced/metastatic RET- altered thyroid cancer. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03037385

Abstract The discipline of Cardio-Oncology has seen tremendous growth over the past decade. It is devoted to the cardiovascular (CV) care of the cancer patient, especially to the mitigation and management of CV complications or toxicities of cancer therapies, which can have profound implications on prognosis. To that effect, many studies have assessed CV toxicities in patients undergoing various types of cancer therapies; however, direct comparisons have proven difficult due to lack of uniformity in CV toxicity endpoints. Similarly, in clinical practice, there can be substantial differences in the understanding of what constitutes CV toxicity, which can lead to significant variation in patient management and outcomes. This document addresses these issues and provides consensus definitions for the most commonly reported CV toxicities, including cardiomyopathy/heart failure and myocarditis, vascular toxicity, and hypertension, as well as arrhythmias and QTc prolongation. The current document reflects a harmonizing review of the current landscape in CV toxicities and the definitions used to define these. This consensus effort aims to provide a structure for definitions of CV toxicity in the clinic and for future research. It will be important to link the definitions outlined herein to outcomes in clinical practice and CV endpoints in clinical trials. It should facilitate communication across various disciplines to improve clinical outcomes for cancer patients with CV diseases.

Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV‐2) has given rise to a pandemic of unprecedented proportions in the modern era because of its highly contagious nature and impact on human health and society: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Patients with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and established CV disease (CVD) are among those initially identified at the highest risk for serious complications, including death. Subsequent studies have pointed out that patients with cancer are also at high risk for a critical disease course. Therefore, the most vulnerable patients are seemingly those with both cancer and CVD, and a careful, unified approach in the evaluation and management of this patient population is especially needed in times of the COVID‐19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of the unique implications of the viral outbreak for the field of cardio‐oncology and outlines key modifications in the approach to this ever‐increasing patient population. These modifications include a shift toward greater utilization of cardiac biomarkers and a more focused CV imaging approach in the broader context of modifications to typical practice pathways. The goal of this strategic adjustment is to minimize the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection (or other future viral outbreaks) while not becoming negligent of CVD and its important impact on the overall outcomes of patients who are being treated for cancer.

Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in histopathologic specimens can provide important prognostic information in diverse solid tumor types, and may also be of value in predicting response to treatments. However, implementation as a routine clinical biomarker has not yet been achieved. As successful use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and other forms of immunotherapy become a clinical reality, the need for widely applicable, accessible, and reliable immunooncology biomarkers is clear. In part 1 of this review we briefly discuss the host immune response to tumors and different approaches to TIL assessment. We propose a standardized methodology to assess TILs in solid tumors on hematoxylin and eosin sections, in both primary and metastatic settings, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines for TIL assessment in invasive breast carcinoma. A review of the literature regarding the value of TIL assessment in different solid tumor types follows in part 2. The method we propose is reproducible, affordable, easily applied, and has demonstrated prognostic and predictive significance in invasive breast carcinoma. This standardized methodology may be used as a reference against which other methods are compared, and should be evaluated for clinical validity and utility. Standardization of TIL assessment will help to improve consistency and reproducibility in this field, enrich both the quality and quantity of comparable evidence, and help to thoroughly evaluate the utility of TILs assessment in this era of immunotherapy.

Assessment of the immune response to tumors is growing in importance as the prognostic implications of this response are increasingly recognized, and as immunotherapies are evaluated and implemented in different tumor types. However, many different approaches can be used to assess and describe the immune response, which limits efforts at implementation as a routine clinical biomarker. In part 1 of this review, we have proposed a standardized methodology to assess tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in solid tumors, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group guidelines for invasive breast carcinoma. In part 2 of this review, we discuss the available evidence for the prognostic and predictive value of TILs in common solid tumors, including carcinomas of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary system, gynecologic system, and head and neck, as well as primary brain tumors, mesothelioma and melanoma. The particularities and different emphases in TIL assessment in different tumor types are discussed. The standardized methodology we propose can be adapted to different tumor types and may be used as a standard against which other approaches can be compared. Standardization of TIL assessment will help clinicians, researchers and pathologists to conclusively evaluate the utility of this simple biomarker in the current era of immunotherapy.